Materialists......

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Did you mean that some of them lead to speciation?

No.

Rubbish, tricky. No animal apart from humans uses SYMBOLIC thought.

How do you know that (for whatever definition of symbolic thought you are using)?

You think that a vicious dog which learns to be friendly is doing something no different to a human being which learns about morality, understands the difference between right and wrong and starts to behave morally?

This claim is so utterly absurd that I am not even going to bother debunking it. It falls over without me needing to push it.

How so?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

REALLY ?? Just transfer that -1 to the other side and:

1 = 0 + 1

See ?

No, no, no, you can't do that, because the equal sign is not the mathematical symbol for equality. There shall be no algebra of Being.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Exactly. There ARE problems that animals can solve using rational thought.

Cool article in the latest Science about how ants keep track of how far they have wandered so they can take a straight path back home.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Libertarian free will is not compatible with empirical determinism, because the cause is will instead of something else empirical/physical.

And will is nondeterministic, nonrandom, uncaused, nonmechanistic, nonalgorithmic, and illogical.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How do you know that (for whatever definition of symbolic thought you are using)?

Human infants learn whatever symbolic thought-system is endemic in their native land. We call it their native language. No non-human infants are capable of doing the same thing, and it's not because humans do not try to teach them. On the contrary, every person who owns a cat talks to it. No cats speak.

 

[Tricky]

No, Geoff. Animals are not as smart as you and they don't have such a complex system of morality. But a dog knows that peeing on the carpet is bad and will behave in a very guilty way if he is caught doing it. You can say that kind of "morality" is trained, but so is much of yours.

All I am saying and all that I have ever said here is that consciousness, rationality and morality are relative, not absolute, and that the same forces that drive evolution toward consciousness, rationality and morality in humans also drive them toward consciousness, rationality and morality in some animals.

A dog that capers when he sees a leash is using symbolic logic, simple though it is.

I notice that you completely ignored my discussion of how a child grows from amoral to moral. That alone demonstrates how relative morality is.

And you needn't act so superior around us "dumb animals" because our concepts of morality are different from yours (or from Kant's). Isn't it enough that I already said you were smart? Can you not be satisfied unless you are smarter, more moral and more rational than every other creature? I would call that a moral failing on your part.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No, no, no, you can't do that, because the equal sign is not the mathematical symbol for equality.
~~ Paul

OK, I give up. What is the mathematical symbol for equality?

 

[Robin]

Nothing.

Why did you bring it up then?

No.

Libertarian free will must involve something where free will determines something. In that sense it involves a "different sort of determinism". This distinguishes it from pure randomness, although it would still look random to empirical science, because empirical science cannot reach the determining factor. Is that clear enough?

Not really - it matters none if "empirical science" cannot reach the determining factor. If there is a determining factor then it is deterministic.

No. It is not the belief which causes the action. It is will. Belief just provides the framework for deciding which action is moral.

But if the beliefs were something different then the action would be something different. So it is the determining factor.

You might just as easily say the will just provides a mechanism for deciding which action is moral.

Libertarian free will is not compatible with empirical determinism, because the cause is will instead of something else empirical/physical.

We are back where we started, what does "empirical/physical" have to do with it?

Are you saying that free will is compatible with determinism just as long as it is "non-empirical/physical" determinism?

How does "non-empirical/physical" determinism differ from "empirical/physical" determinism?

And are you ever going to get around to telling me what definition you are using when you use the word "physical"?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And will is nondeterministic, nonrandom, uncaused, nonmechanistic, nonalgorithmic, and illogical.

~~ Paul

Neti, neti, neti....

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No, Geoff. Animals are not as smart as you and they don't have such a complex system of morality. But a dog knows that peeing on the carpet is bad....

All the dog knows is that bad things happen to it if it pees on the carpet.

and will behave in a very guilty way if he is caught doing it.

Sure, dogs are highly competent as far as socialising goes. They are the ultimate pack animal. They are not born with our ability for language or reason but they are born with an in-built ability to learn "pack culture". All that is happening when a dog learns the rules of the house is that the dog uses its evolutionarily-supplied social skills. Dogs which do not learn to follow the pack rules never get to reproduce. None of this has anything to do with free will or morality. It has everything to do with survival of the individual.

You can say that kind of "morality" is trained, but so is much of yours.

My morality is not equivalent to that of a dog.

Your's might be, but that is none of my business.

A dog that capers when he sees a leash is using symbolic logic, simple though it is.

Nonsense. Even a fish can learn a pavlov-type response. Are you going to tell me fishes are moral beings?

I notice that you completely ignored my discussion of how a child grows from amoral to moral. That alone demonstrates how relative morality is.

I have not once defended absolute morality.

And you needn't act so superior around us "dumb animals" because our concepts of morality are different from yours (or from Kant's).

If your moral code is what you've said it is then.........

Isn't it enough that I already said you were smart?

Not really. Being smart wasn't something I had to exert free will to achieve. Nature gave it to me without any effort on my own part. Trying to behave morally, or at least morally better than a dog, was something I had to work on. I'm still not very good at it, but I am better than a dog. There are many, many people who are considerably less smart than me and whose behaviour is considerably more moral than mine is. At which point one wonders what the absolute benefits are of being smart.

If the world was full of smart people, we would probably be even more f****d than we currently are.

Can you not be satisfied unless you are smarter, more moral and more rational than every other creature? I would call that a moral failing on your part.

I have many, many moral failings. I sit in moral judgement on nobody. [edit : this matters a lot to me. I sit in a glass house. I do not cast moral stones. I am not lifegazer. I do not believe the world can be fixed. ]

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Why did you bring it up then?

I'd run out of cannabis.

Not really - it matters none if "empirical science" cannot reach the determining factor. If there is a determining factor then it is deterministic.

That is being oversimplistic. Libertarian free will, by definition, has a non-deterministic component (it's source) and a deterministic component (it's effect).

But if the beliefs were something different then the action would be something different. So it is the determining factor.

Not entirely. The moral beliefs provide the framework against which the will must act. Each person must be judged against their own moral code, not anybody-else's.

You might just as easily say the will just provides a mechanism for deciding which action is moral.

No. That must be done by the rational mind.

We are back where we started, what does "empirical/physical" have to do with it?

Because physical/empirical is the deterministic world.

Are you saying that free will is compatible with determinism just as long as it is "non-empirical/physical" determinism?

see 2nd response in this post.

How does "non-empirical/physical" determinism differ from "empirical/physical" determinism?

In the latter case, the cause is empirical and the effect is empirical. In the former case, the cause is non-empirical and the effect is empirical.

And are you ever going to get around to telling me what definition you are using when you use the word "physical"?

Probably not.

It depends who I am talking to and what the context is. It is not my fault that the definition of physical is all over the place. Perhaps if the people who defend physicalism actually understood what they were defending it would not be such a problem. I know precisely what I mean when I tell you I am a neutral monist.

 

[Robin]

Neti, neti, neti....

And apparently not that either.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And apparently not that either.

No, not that either.

 

[Robin]

That is being oversimplistic. Libertarian free will, by definition, has a non-deterministic component (it's source) and a deterministic component (it's effect).

That is totally unclear. Say I believe x is the right thing to do, by y is the thing that benefits me the most. Say that I believe that I ought to always do the right thing.

I might do x or y. But the question is, would there be a reason why I chose one and not the other? If yes, then the source is deterministic as well as the effect.

If no, then the source and the effect is arbitrary.

Not entirely. The moral beliefs provide the framework against which the will must act. Each person must be judged against their own moral code, not anybody-else's.

Which is just precisely what I said. If the belief is different the action is different.

No. That must be done by the rational mind.

But if my action is not determined by my rational mind then it is not my will. An act of will is a voluntary act.

Because physical/empirical is the deterministic world.

What deterministic world would that be?

In the latter case, the cause is empirical and the effect is empirical. In the former case, the cause is non-empirical and the effect is empirical.

Three red herrings that you need to lose. Physical - material - empirical. Something that is deterministic and unobservable is still deterministic.

It depends who I am talking to and what the context is. It is not my fault that the definition of physical is all over the place.

It is very much your fault if you use a word and are completely unable to explain just what you mean by the word.

You only compound your error if you try to blame others because you use a word and do not know what you mean by it.

I don't care what meaning other people might invest in it. I ask you only what you mean by it.

Perhaps if the people who defend physicalism actually understood what they were defending it would not be such a problem.

As I said before, read Ayer's treatment of Physicalism and the people who defend it in "Philosophy in the Twentieth Century" and you will see not only that there is a thorough treatment of what is meant by "physical", but also that Physicalism bears no resemblance whatsoever to Materialism.

I know precisely what I mean when I tell you I am a neutral monist.

If you ever explained that I missed it.

 

[articulett]

I'm not sure you or I can understand "right and wrong". We only understand "fits with my moral code" or "goes against my moral code". I think some animals make similar, if less complex, judgments.

Yep. And Justgeoff could actually learn all about it if he wasn't so beholden to his woo. (He has me on ignore--he prefers that nothing intrude upon his sacred ideals.) Empathy can be seen in mirror neurons--even in apes...nurturing behavior can be induced with hormones and knocked out with genes--they've recently made an "autistic" mouse whose pups die, because they have no nurturing instinct. Morals evolve because they help a clan or group survive--"you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours"--"reciprocity"--"tit for tat" an "eye for an eye". Religions and governments and laws are just meme-plexes that attempt to codify inborn tendencies.

I can never tell what the real difference in thinking is--or what justgeoff or Hammegk actually believe. I understand the term "free will"--it is a religious term--and childish to me. How can you will yourself to believe in something--can you will yourself to believe in Zeus? Can you will yourself to believe the hijackers are having an eternity of sex? Yes, people have choices--but all choices are tempered by options available, tendencies, preferences, etc. Nobody chooses their sex or what or who they are sexually attracted to. People feel varying level of temptation...you can change how people make decisions by altering their frontal lobes--you can decrease agressive impulsive acts with medication--and increase them too. Free will, is a stupid idea for simplistic thinkers who think life is a test that you pass or fail based on how you use your free will. This test, supposedly determines your eternity. But no neurologist, behavior specialist, or biologists, pretends that there is totally "free will". Even the law recognizes "entrapment". Do pedophiles choose to be pedophiles? Hopefully, they can control their actions, but that seems iffy. Does a women who is raped choose the trauma that will be with her all her life from that experience? (Buddhists would call it karma for something bad she did in a former life.)

Where do Hammegk and Justgeoff think they are exercising "free will" and can they give concrete examples where materialists would see things differently. They seem to be summing up our thoughts--and they are way off and simplistic. Are they unable to comprehend--or unwilling? People are born into all sorts of bodies and have all sorts of experiences--the will per each decison everyone makes both consciously and unconsciously can never be identical. So where exactly is this "free will"--or rather, what is it? How can it be separate from the brain?

 

[Soapy Sam]

"There is a slight misunderstanding here. I said humans have the capability to distinguish between right and wrong. What I didn't say was that this means there is some sort of infallible absolute morality. It will always be a subjective judgement - but it nevertheless is a judgement. "-JustGeoff.

Fair enough. But unless we can establish that humans judge between two options in a functionally different way from animals, then we cannot say that a dog is incapable of judgement.

According to extensive scientific research , 9 out of ten owners say their dogs express a preference for Pedigree Chum. (Or whatever. I don't keep up to date with ads.).

And if we make mere judgement the criterion of morality, then morality, while not random, is certainly arbitrary- with the limitation as I said earlier that it will be biased towards what people want others to do, even if it means they must at least act like they do so themselves. Most moral rules after all are commands to others NOT to do something "bad", rather than voluntary statements of intent to do something "good".

My belief is that it is literally impossible for a man alone on a desert island to commit an immoral act. (Once man Friday arrives and Crusoe makes him his servant, we see Christian morality going into action. The two tier society is back. But that's a specific side issue. )

If morality arises from judgement , yet that judgement is constrained by the biology of the species, the inertia of the herd and the desires of the individual, it begins to look remarkably like instinct.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That is totally unclear. Say I believe x is the right thing to do, by y is the thing that benefits me the most. Say that I believe that I ought to always do the right thing.

I might do x or y. But the question is, would there be a reason why I chose one and not the other?

No, the question is whether there is a "you" which is capable of choosing what "you" do.

If yes, then the source is deterministic as well as the effect.

If no, then the source and the effect is arbitrary.

What do you mean by "you"? Your brain or your "I"/soul?

Which is just precisely what I said. If the belief is different the action is different.

If the belief is different then the moral framework is different.

But if my action is not determined by my rational mind then it is not my will. An act of will is a voluntary act.

The voluntary act is an act of will, the rational mind determines whether or not it was moral.

What deterministic world would that be?

The empirical/deterministic one.

Three red herrings that you need to lose. Physical - material - empirical. Something that is deterministic and unobservable is still deterministic.

Depends what you mean by deterministic. I never lose. I am the duracell bunny.

It is very much your fault if you use a word and are completely unable to explain just what you mean by the word.

Yeah, lots of things are my fault.

I don't care what meaning other people might invest in it. I ask you only what you mean by it.

I cannot establish a consistent meaning of it because the physicalists themselves use it in more than one way. I have my own understanding of what "physical" means - it is the world of the objects of perception.

As I said before, read Ayer's treatment of Physicalism and the people who defend it in "Philosophy in the Twentieth Century" and you will see not only that there is a thorough treatment of what is meant by "physical", but also that Physicalism bears no resemblance whatsoever to Materialism.

If you ever explained that I missed it.

OK, "materialism" refers to the objects of perception. "physical" means whatever the physicalist means by "physical".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Fair enough. But unless we can establish that humans judge between two options in a functionally different way from animals, then we cannot say that a dog is incapable of judgement.

There is no shortage of evidence to suggest that humans can judge between two option in a functionally different way from animals.

According to extensive scientific research , 9 out of ten owners say their dogs express a preference for Pedigree Chum. (Or whatever. I don't keep up to date with ads.).

And my cat doesn't like Whiskas.

And if we make mere judgement the criterion of morality, then morality, while not random, is certainly arbitrary-....

Well, it's not absolute and certain aspects of it are distinctly subjective....

with the limitation as I said earlier that it will be biased towards what people want others to do, even if it means they must at least act like they do so themselves. Most moral rules after all are commands to others NOT to do something "bad", rather than voluntary statements of intent to do something "good".

That is a very interesting question and deserves its own thread.

My belief is that it is literally impossible for a man alone on a desert island to commit an immoral act.

I don't agree. Unnecessarily cruel acts towards the local wildlife would be immoral, IMO.

 

[Tricky]

Yep. And Justgeoff could actually learn all about it if he wasn't so beholden to his woo. (He has me on ignore--he prefers that nothing intrude upon his sacred ideals.) Empathy can be seen in mirror neurons--even in apes...nurturing behavior can be induced with hormones and knocked out with genes--they've recently made an "autistic" mouse whose pups die, because they have no nurturing instinct. Morals evolve because they help a clan or group survive--"you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours"--"reciprocity"--"tit for tat" an "eye for an eye". Religions and governments and laws are just meme-plexes that attempt to codify inborn tendencies.

I can never tell what the real difference in thinking is--or what justgeoff or Hammegk actually believe. I understand the term "free will"--it is a religious term--and childish to me. How can you will yourself to believe in something--can you will yourself to believe in Zeus? Can you will yourself to believe the hijackers are having an eternity of sex? Yes, people have choices--but all choices are tempered by options available, tendencies, preferences, etc. Nobody chooses their sex or what or who they are sexually attracted to. People feel varying level of temptation...you can change how people make decisions by altering their frontal lobes--you can decrease agressive impulsive acts with medication--and increase them too. Free will, is a stupid idea for simplistic thinkers who think life is a test that you pass or fail based on how you use your free will. This test, supposedly determines your eternity. But no neurologist, behavior specialist, or biologists, pretends that there is totally "free will". Even the law recognizes "entrapment". Do pedophiles choose to be pedophiles? Hopefully, they can control their actions, but that seems iffy. Does a women who is raped choose the trauma that will be with her all her life from that experience? (Buddhists would call it karma for something bad she did in a former life.)

Where do Hammegk and Justgeoff think they are exercising "free will" and can they give concrete examples where materialists would see things differently. They seem to be summing up our thoughts--and they are way off and simplistic. Are they unable to comprehend--or unwilling? People are born into all sorts of bodies and have all sorts of experiences--the will per each decison everyone makes both consciously and unconsciously can never be identical. So where exactly is this "free will"--or rather, what is it? How can it be separate from the brain?

I use the term "free will" only to keep from sidelining a thread. In reality, I cannot tell the difference between "free will" and plain old "will". My personal choice is to use the word "choice". As far as I can tell, choice is indistinguishable from free will. In all cases, I regard it as a description of a group of processes by which we apparently select between available, perceived alternatives, not as some metaphysical decision-making thingie.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I use the term "free will" only to keep from sidelining a thread. In reality, I cannot tell the difference between "free will" and plain old "will". My personal choice is to use the word "choice". As far as I can tell, choice is indistinguishable from free will. In all cases, I regard it as a description of a group of processes by which we apparently select between available, perceived alternatives, not as some metaphysical decision-making thingie.

Do you consider you learned anything at all from your interactions with Franko? Or was it all just nonsense?